Single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin helps patients of diverse ethnicity attain recommended goals for blood pressure and lipids (the Gemini-AALA study)

Randomized, multicenter, parallel, open, phase 4 study to compare the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin/amlodipine polypill versus atorvastatin/amlodipine polypill in hypertension patient with dyslipidemia

The authors performed this study to investigate the efficacy and safety of a rosuvastatin (RSV)/amlodipine (AML) polypill compared with those of atorvastatin (ATV)/AML polypill. We included 259 patients from 21 institutions in Korea. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, or ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of the RSV 10.20 mg/AML 5 mg via percentage changes in LDL-C after 8 weeks of treatment, compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. There was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (full analysis set [FAS]: -7.08%, 95% CI: -11.79 to -2.38, p = .0034, per-protocol analysis set [PPS]: -6.97%, 95% CI: -11.76 to -2.19, p = .0046). Also, there was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (FAS: -10.13%, 95% CI: -15.41 to -4.84, p = .0002, PPS: -10.96%, 95% CI: -15.98 to -5.93, p < .0001). There was no significant difference in the adverse events rates between RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, and ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg. In conclusion, while maintaining safety, RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg more effectively reduced LDL-C compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg (Clinical trial: NCT03951207).

Comparing Triple Combination Drug Therapy and Traditional Monotherapy for Better Survival in Patients With High-Risk Hypertension: A Systematic Review

High-risk hypertension patients are more susceptible to cardiovascular disease, stroke, and mortality. Monotherapy and triple combination drug therapy are two different approaches to treating hypertension. Monotherapy involves using a single medication to manage hypertension, whereas triple combination therapy involves the simultaneous use of three different antihypertensive medications from different drug classes. Making a fast switch from monotherapy to combination medication is one method to regulate blood pressure (BP) better. It is widely recognized that a significant proportion of individuals with hypertension require combination therapy to manage their condition effectively. This review aims to evaluate the mortality rates across monotherapy and triple combination drug therapy in high-risk hypertension patients. A systematic literature review was conducted across multiple scientific literature repositories. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Based on the end outcome of each published journal on the effectiveness of triple combination drug therapy as a treatment option for high-risk hypertension patients, there was a notable difference in overall survival, mortality rates, BP reduction, and adherence datasets. Triple combination drug use correlated with increased timeframes for multiple patient survival parameters within the articles shortlisted in this investigation. However, it is crucial for healthcare providers to weigh the risks and benefits of triple combination drug therapy when deciding which treatment approach is best for their patients.

Differential Preincubation Effects of Nicardipine on OATP1B1- and OATP1B3-Mediated Transport in the Presence and Absence of Protein: Implications in Assessing OATP1B1- and OATP1B3-Mediated Drug-Drug Interactions

Impaired transport activity of hepatic OATP1B1 and OATP1B3 due to drug-drug interactions (DDIs) often leads to increased systemic exposure to substrate drugs (e.g., lipid-lowering statins). Since dyslipidemia and hypertension frequently coexist, statins are often concurrently used with antihypertensives, including calcium channel blockers (CCBs). OATP1B1/1B3-related DDIs in humans have been reported for several CCBs. To date, the OATP1B1/1B3-mediated DDI potential of CCB nicardipine has not been assessed. The current study was designed to assess the OATP1B1- and OATP1B3-mediated DDI potential of nicardipine using the R-value model, following the US-FDA guidance. IC50 values of nicardipine against OATP1B1 and OATP1B3 were determined in transporter-overexpressing human embryonic kidney 293 cells using [3H]-estradiol 17β-D-glucuronide and [3H]-cholecystokinin-8 as substrates, respectively, with or without nicardipine-preincubation in protein-free Hanks' Balanced Salt Solution (HBSS) or in fetal bovine serum (FBS)-containing culture medium. Preincubation with nicardipine for 30 min in protein-free HBSS buffer produced lower IC50 and higher R-values for both OATP1B1 and OATP1B3 compared to in FBS-containing medium, yielding IC50 values of 0.98 and 1.63 µM and R-values of 1.4 and 1.3 for OATP1B1 and OATP1B3, respectively. The R-values were higher than the US-FDA cut-off value of 1.1, supporting that nicardipine has the potential to cause OATP1B1/3-mediated DDIs. Current studies provide insight into the consideration of optimal preincubation conditions when assessing the OATP1B1/3-mediated DDIs in vitro.

The value of the polypill in cardiovascular disease: an Italian multidisciplinary Delphi panel consensus

The purpose of this work was to reach the consensus of a multidisciplinary and multistakeholder Italian panel on the value of polypill in cardiovascular disease, with respect to the clinical, technological, economic and organizational dimension. A three-step modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. Eleven experts in the area of cardiology, pharmaceutical technology, general practice, hospital pharmacy, pharmacology, and health economics participated in the expert panel. To identify existing evidence concerning the value of polypill in the prevention of patients with cardiovascular disease, a systematic literature review was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. In the first round, 22 statements were distributed to the panel. Panel members were asked to mark 'agree' or 'disagree' for each statement and provide any comments. The same voting method was again used for the second round. In the first round nine statements met consensus. In the second round, 10 statements reached consensus. Overall, consensus was reached for 19 statements representing five value polypill domains: clinical, technological, economic and organizational. During a final web meeting with all panel members consensus document open points were discussed. Panel members agreed to recognize polypill as effective in reducing cardiovascular events, blood pressure and lipids, cardiovascular risk and the weight of therapy, in therapeutic adherence improvement, in the absence of differences in bioavailability between drugs administered in fixed or free combinations and the better cost-effectiveness profile compared with standard care. This document represents a knowledge framework to inform decision makers of the value of polypill in cardiovascular prevention.

Fixed-dose combination therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death and disability worldwide, yet CVD risk factor control and secondary prevention rates remain low. A fixed-dose combination of blood pressure and cholesterol lowering and antiplatelet treatments into a single pill, or polypill, has been proposed as one strategy to reduce the global burden of CVD by up to 80% given its potential for better adherence and lower costs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of fixed-dose combination therapy on reducing fatal and non-fatal CVD events and on improving blood pressure and lipid CVD risk factors for both primary and secondary prevention of CVD. We also aimed to determine discontinuation rates, adverse events, health-related quality of life, and costs of fixed-dose combination therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to week 2 July 2013), EMBASE Ovid (1980 to Week 28 2013), ISI Web of Science (1970 to 19 July 2013), and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA), and Health Economics Evaluations Database (HEED) (2011, Issue 4) in The Cochrane Library. We used no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a fixed-dose combination therapy including at least one blood pressure lowering and one lipid lowering component versus usual care, placebo, or a single drug active component for any treatment duration in adults ≥ 18 years old with no restrictions on presence or absence of pre-existing cardiovascular disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted the data. We evaluated risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. We sought to include outcome data on all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal CVD events, adverse events, changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentrations, discontinuation rates, quality of life, and costs. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and weighted mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed-effect models when heterogeneity was low (I(2) < 50%) and random-effects models when heterogeneity was high (I(2) > 50%).

MAIN RESULTS

We found nine randomised controlled trials with a total of 7047 participants. Seven of the nine trials evaluated the effects of fixed-dose combination therapy on primary CVD prevention, and the trial length ranged from six weeks to 15 months. We found a moderate to high risk of bias in the domains of selection, performance, detection, attrition, and other types of bias in five of the nine trials. Compared with the comparator groups, the effects of the fixed-dose combination treatment on mortality (1.2% versus 1.0%, RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.38,  N = 3465) and cardiovascular events (4.0% versus 2.9%, RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.10, N = 2479) were uncertain (low quality evidence). The low event rates for these outcomes, limited availability of data as only two out of nine trials reported on these outcomes, and a high risk of bias in at least one domain suggest that these results should not be viewed with confidence. Adverse events were common in both the intervention (30%) and comparator (24%) groups, with participants randomised to fixed-dose combination therapy being 20% (95% CI 9% to 30%) more likely to report an adverse event. Notably, no serious adverse events were reported. Compared with placebo, the rate of discontinuation among participants randomised to fixed-dose combination was higher (14% versus 11%, RR 1.26 95% CI 1.02 to 1.55). The weighted mean differences in systolic and diastolic blood pressure between the intervention and control arms were -7.05 mmHg (95% CI -10.18 to -3.87) and -3.65 mmHg (95% CI -5.44 to -1.85), respectively. The weighted mean differences (95% CI) in total and LDL cholesterol between the intervention and control arms were -0.75 mmol/L (95% CI -1.05 to -0.46) and -0.81 mmol/L (95% CI -1.09 to -0.53), respectively. There was a high degree of statistical heterogeneity in comparisons of blood pressure and lipids (I(2) ≥ 70% for all) that could not be explained, so these results should be viewed with caution. Fixed-dose combination therapy improved adherence to a multi-drug strategy by 33% (26% to 41%) compared with usual care, but this comparison was reported in only one study. The effects of fixed-dose combination therapy on quality of life are uncertain, though these results were reported in only one trial. No trials reported costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, single drug active component, or usual care, the effects of fixed-dose combination therapy on all-cause mortality or CVD events are uncertain; only few trials report these outcomes and the included trials were primarily designed to observe changes in CVD risk factor levels rather than clinical events. Reductions in blood pressure and lipid parameters are generally lower than those previously projected, though substantial heterogeneity of results exists. Fixed-dose combination therapy is associated with modest increases in adverse events compared with placebo, single drug active component, or usual care but may be associated with improved adherence to a multidrug regimen. Ongoing trials of fixed-dose combination therapy will likely inform key outcomes.

Fixed Combination of Amlodipine/Atorvastatin

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death worldwide. Risk factors are rarely seen individually, and the 2 most common and most frequently associated risk factors are hypertension and dyslipidemia (DL). Studies conducted in different parts of the world uniquely point out insufficient efficacy of hypertension and DL treatment, which is reflected in blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein levels higher than target values. A reason of this therapeutic failure is the reduced adherence, which is mainly caused by multidrug therapy. A possible solution for this problem is the use of fixed combinations. The main advantages of amlodipine/atorvastatin fixed combination are synergistic effect of these 2 components, a single-dose treatment, high safety profile, and good tolerance.

Reduction in cardiovascular risk using proactive multifactorial intervention versus usual care in younger (< 65 years) and older (≥ 65 years) patients in the CRUCIAL trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the reduction in calculated Framingham 10 year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk after 52 weeks' intervention with a proactive multifactorial intervention (PMI) strategy (based on single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin [SPAA]) versus continuing usual care (UC) (based on investigators' best clinical judgment) among younger (<65 years) and older (≥ 65 years) patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Sub-analysis of the Cluster Randomized Usual Care versus Caduet Investigation Assessing Long-term risk (CRUCIAL) trial. Eligible patients had hypertension and ≥ 3 cardiovascular risk factors.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Treatment-related reduction in calculated Framingham 10 year CHD risk between baseline and Week 52 in younger and older patients.

RESULTS

Nine hundred patients (63.5%) were <65 years (mean age 54.2 years, 57.4% men) and 517 patients (36.5%) were ≥ 65 years (mean age 70.5 years, 42.7% men). Younger patients had lower mean baseline CHD risk versus older patients (17.1% vs. 22.6%). A greater reduction in calculated CHD risk at Week 52 was observed in the PMI versus the UC arm in both younger (-33.2% vs. -2.9%, p < 0.001) and older (-32.7% vs. -5.7%, p < 0.001) patients. Least-squares mean treatment differences (PMI vs. UC) in percentage change from baseline in calculated CHD risk were similar in younger and older patients (-26.3% vs. -25.7%, age interaction p = 0.887). CHD risk reduction was slightly greater among younger men than younger women (-29.3 vs. -23.9, gender interaction p = 0.062). A low proportion of patients discontinued the PMI strategy due to adverse events in both age groups (5.8% vs. 6.1%, respectively). Study limitations included ad-hoc (not pre-specified) sub-group analysis and short duration of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The PMI strategy based on the inclusion of SPAA in the treatment regimen is more effective than UC in reducing calculated CHD risk. This strategy may be considered as the treatment of choice in younger and older hypertensive patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors.

Slovak trial on cardiovascular risk reduction following national guidelines with CaDUET® (the STRONG DUET study)

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy and safety of single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin for reducing blood pressure (BP), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC), and predicted 10-year cardiovascular (CV) risk have been demonstrated in low CV risk countries. The Slovak Trial on Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Following National Guidelines with CaDUET® (amlodipine besylate/atorvastatin calcium; Pfizer, Morrisville, PA, USA; STRONG DUET) study evaluated its clinical utility in Slovakia, one of the highest CV risk regions in Europe.

METHODS

This was a two-phase study involving 100 outpatient cardiologist and internist departments in Slovakia. Phase 1 assessed BP control and CV risk profiles in adults with treated hypertension, and phase 2 was an open-label, multicenter, observational study. In the phase 2 study, patients with treated but uncontrolled hypertension and three or more coronary heart disease risk factors received single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (5/10 or 10/10 mg) for 12 weeks. Major outcomes were the percentage of patients achieving target BP (≤140/90 mmHg) and/or LDL-C (≤3 mmol/L) and reductions in predicted 10-year CV risk.

RESULTS

Of the 4,672 phase 1 patients, 80.8% had uncontrolled hypertension and 61.4% had dyslipidemia. Of the 1,406 phase 2 patients, 90.3% of patients achieved target BP at week 12, 66.3% achieved target LDL-C, and 60.7% achieved both. The mean 10-year CV risk was reduced by 49% (P < 0.0001); treatment was well-tolerated and safe.

CONCLUSION

Single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin was associated with significant improvements in BP, LDL-C target attainment, and 10-year CV risk in patients with uncontrolled hypertension in Slovakia. The treatment was well-tolerated and safe. Use of single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin in high CV-risk countries could lead to significant improvements in CV risk management.

Changes in calculated coronary heart disease risk using proactive multifactorial intervention versus continued usual care in Latin-American and non-Latin-American patients enrolled in the CRUCIAL trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the change in calculated coronary heart disease (CHD) risk using a proactive multifactorial intervention (PMI) versus usual care (UC), among Latin-American (LA) and non-LA patients enrolled in the CRUCIAL trial.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This is a sub-analysis of the Cluster Randomized Usual Care versus Caduet Investigation Assessing Long-term-risk (CRUCIAL) trial. CRUCIAL was a prospective, multinational, open-label, cluster-randomized trial. Eligible patients had hypertension and ≥3 additional cardiovascular risk factors, but no history of CHD and baseline total cholesterol ≤6.5 mmol/l (250 mg/dl). The PMI strategy was implemented by the inclusion of single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (SPAA) in the patients' treatment regimen. Overall, 20% of patients resided in the LA region.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Treatment-related change in calculated Framingham 10-year CHD risk between baseline and Week 52 in the LA and non-LA regions.

RESULTS

A greater relative reduction in calculated CHD risk after 52 weeks' follow-up was observed for patients in the PMI arm compared with UC arm in both LA (-32.8% vs. -7.5%, p = 0.003) and non-LA regions (-33.1% vs. -3.3%, p < 0.001), region interaction p = 0.316. The proportion of patients discontinuing treatment in the PMI arm due to adverse events (AEs) was low in both regions (both 5.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The PMI approach based on the inclusion of SPAA in the patients' treatment regimen may improve the management of CHD risk among patients residing in LA and non-LA regions. Clinicians may be reassured by the low rate of AEs leading to discontinuation of SPAA in both regions.

Impact of age and gender on blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction: results of a pooled analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the simultaneous reduction of blood pressure (BP) to below 150 mmHg and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) after treatment with single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (SPAA) among younger (<65 years), older (≥65 years) and elderly (≥75 years) men and women with hypertension and dyslipidemia.

METHODS

Data from five, 14-20-week, open-label, multi-national studies (GEMINI US, GEMINI-Australia, Asia, Latin-America, Africa/Middle-East [AALA], JEWEL 1, JEWEL 2, and the Clinical Utility of Caduet in Simultaneously Achieving Blood Pressure and Lipid End Points [CAPABLE]) were pooled. In these studies, SPAA (5/10 to 10/80 mg/mg) was electively titrated to achieve study-specific targets. Reductions in BP and LDL-C, and changes in renal and liver function tests, fasting glucose and adverse event (AE) rates were compared across the three age groups.

RESULTS

A total of 3613 patients (65%) were <65 years, 1946 (35%) were ≥65 years and 441 (8%) were ≥75 years. Baseline mean systolic BP tended to increase with age and diastolic BP and LDL-C decreased, p<0.001. Final mean SPAA dose was similar (7.2/23.9, 7.1/24.3, 7.1/24.0 mg/mg). Final mean BP in the younger/older/elderly groups was 128.1/79.9, 131.3/75.0, 132.8/73.4 mmHg (adjusted BP reductions -20.2/-10.4, -18.6/-12.7, -17.7/-13.2 mmHg, p<0.001). Final mean LDL-C was 91, 87, 87 mg/dl (2.4, 2.3, 2.3 mmol/l) p<0.001; adjusted %LDL-C reductions -27.1, -26.8, -26.4, p<0.001. Estimated glomerular filtration rate increased in the younger group but decreased in the older and elderly groups (p=0.005). Small increases in liver function tests and fasting glucose were observed. Discontinuations due to AEs tended to increase with age but were low in all groups (6.2%, 7.9%, 8.8%, p=0.045). Study limitations include post hoc analysis and short duration of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Simultaneous reduction of BP to below 150 mmHg and LDL-C using SPAA is both effective and well-tolerated among younger and older men and women, including those aged≥75 years. Clinicians may be reassured by the low proportion of AEs that led to discontinuation in all groups suggesting that older patients were not disadvantaged by this treatment.

Proactive cardiovascular risk management versus usual care in patients with and without diabetes mellitus: CRUCIAL trial subanalysis

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and additional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors are at very high risk for future CV events. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of a proactive, multifactorial CV risk factor-management strategy based on single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (SPAA) versus continuing physicians' usual care (UC) over 52 weeks in patients with and without DM. Patients with hypertension and ≥ 3 additional CV risk factors from the Cluster Randomized Usual Care vs Caduet Investigation Assessing Long-Term-Risk (CRUCIAL) trial--an open-label, cluster-randomized trial conducted in 19 countries--were enrolled and randomized to receive proactive intervention (based on SPAA 5/10 to 10/20 mg) or UC (based on investigators' best clinical judgment). Patients were analyzed according to baseline DM status. Six hundred patients had DM. Patients with DM in the SPAA and UC arms had mean ages of 61.8 and 61.5 years, respectively, and an absolute coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of 25.2% and 21.5%, respectively. Among non-DM patients, mean ages were 58.6 and 59.5 years, respectively, and CHD risk was 16.0% vs 15.7%, respectively. Least-squares mean treatment differences in percentage change from baseline in calculated 10-year Framingham CHD risk were -26.3% vs -27.3% among DM and non-DM patients (adjusted for respective baseline values) (both P < 0.0001). Among DM and non-DM patients, adverse events were reported in 52.8% versus 45.6% in the SPAA and 49.6% versus 41.6% in the UC arms, respectively. This global risk-management approach, simultaneously targeting blood pressure and lipids, was more effective for reducing calculated 10-year Framingham CHD risk than UC in patients with DM. While blood pressure changes were of smaller magnitude among patients with DM, this strategy reduced overall risk to an extent comparable with that observed in non-DM patients. Further studies are thus warranted to study this proactive risk factor intervention on CV or mortality endpoints in patients with and without DM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00407537.

Combining antihypertensive and antihyperlipidemic agents - optimizing cardiovascular risk factor management

Clinical guidelines now recognize the importance of a multifactorial approach to managing cardiovascular (CV) risk. This idea was taken a step further with the concept of the Polypill™. There are, however, considerable patent, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, registration, and cost implications that will need to be overcome before the Polypill™ or other single-pill combinations of CV medications become widely available. However, a medication targeting blood pressure (BP) and lipids provides much of the proposed benefits of the Polypill™. A single-pill combination of the antihypertensive amlodipine besylate and the lipid-lowering medication atorvastatin calcium (SPAA) is currently available in many parts of the world. This review describes the rationale for this combination therapy and the clinical trials that have demonstrated that these two agents can be combined without the loss of efficacy for either agent or an increase in the incidence of adverse events. The recently completed Cluster Randomized Usual Care vs Caduet Investigation Assessing Long-term-risk (CRUCIAL trial) is discussed in detail. CRUCIAL was a 12-month, international, multicenter, prospective, open-label, parallel design, cluster-randomized trial, which demonstrated that a proactive intervention strategy based on SPAA in addition to usual care (UC) had substantial benefits on estimated CV risk, BP, and lipids over continued UC alone. Adherence with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapies outside of the controlled environment of clinical trials is very low (~30%–40% at 12 months). Observational studies have demonstrated that improving adherence to lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications may reduce CV events. One means of improving adherence is the use of single-pill combinations. Real-world observational studies have demonstrated that patients are more adherent to SPAA than co-administered antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy, and this improved adherence translated to reduced CV events. Taken together, these findings suggest that SPAA can play an important role in helping physicians improve the management of CV risk in their patients.

Proactive multiple cardiovascular risk factor management compared with usual care in patients with hypertension and additional risk factors: the CRUCIAL trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether a proactive multifactorial risk factor intervention strategy using single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (5/10, 10/10 mg) in addition to other antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy, as required, resulted in greater reduction in calculated Framingham 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk compared with usual care (UC) after 52-weeks treatment.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Prospective, multinational, open-label, cluster randomized trial, with the investigator as the unit of randomization. Eligible hypertensive patients were 35-79 years of age, with ≥3 additional cardiovascular risk factors, but no history of CHD and baseline total cholesterol (TC) ≤6.5 mmol/l.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.ClinicalTrials.gov ; trial identifier NCT00407537.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary endpoint was calculated Framingham 10-year CHD risk at 52 weeks.

RESULTS

Of the 140 randomized sites, 136 sites contributed 1461 patients. Mean baseline age and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were comparable between treatment arms. Mean baseline BP (150.3/89.7 vs. 144.3/86.5 mmHg) and Framingham CHD risk (20.0 vs. 18.1%) were higher in the proactive intervention versus the UC arm (p < 0.002 for both). At week 52, mean CHD risk was 12.5% in the proactive intervention arm and 16.3% in the UC arm (p < 0.001). The difference, observed at weeks 16 and 52, was primarily driven by significant differences in systolic BP and in TC between the two arms. Overall, adverse events (AEs) were reported in 48.8% and 44.0% of patients in the proactive intervention and the UC arm, respectively. Although there were differences in the incidence of AEs between the treatment arms, the AE profile in the proactive intervention arm was consistent with previous safety experience for this medication.

CONCLUSIONS

A proactive multifactorial risk factor intervention strategy that simultaneously treated both BP and cholesterol regardless of individual risk factors per se, is more effective in reducing calculated Framingham 10-year CHD risk than UC in patients with hypertension and additional risk factors.

Amlodipine/Atorvastatin: a review of its use in the treatment of hypertension and dyslipidaemia and the prevention of cardiovascular disease

Amlodipine/atorvastatin (Caduet) is a single-tablet, fixed-dose combination of the dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist amlodipine and the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor atorvastatin. The bioavailability of amlodipine and atorvastatin with a single-tablet, fixed-dose amlodipine/atorvastatin combination was not significantly different to that with coadministered separate amlodipine and atorvastatin tablets. In well controlled clinical trials in patients with hypertension and dyslipidaemia, once-daily amlodipine and atorvastatin (administered as the single-tablet, fixed-dose combination or coadministered as two separate tablets) effectively reduced systolic BP (SBP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and enabled more patients to achieve BP and LDL-C goals than single-agent or placebo therapy. There was no modification of the effect of amlodipine on SBP when administered in combination with atorvastatin and there was no modification of the effect of atorvastatin on LDL-C when administered in combination with amlodipine. In noncomparative, titration-to-goal, open-label 'real-world' trials, the single-tablet, fixed-dose combination of amlodipine/atorvastatin enabled patients with hypertension and dyslipidaemia to achieve both BP and LDL-C goals. Administration of a single tablet of amlodipine/atorvastatin, compared with coadministration of these agents as two separate tablets, improved patient adherence, according to a retrospective study that utilized prescription refill rates from a large US insurance database. Data from the large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled ASCOT-LLA trial also demonstrated that the combination of amlodipine-based therapy and atorvastatin was effective in preventing cardiovascular (CV) endpoints in hypertensive patients at risk of CV disease (CVD). In summary, amlodipine/atorvastatin offers a convenient and effective approach to improving adherence and managing CV risk in hypertensive patients with dyslipidaemia or at risk of CVD.

Can adherence to antihypertensive therapy be used to promote adherence to statin therapy?

OBJECTIVE

To compare adherence with statin therapy in patients switching to single-pill amlodipine besylate/atorvastatin calcium with patients adding a separate statin to their amlodipine regimen.

METHODS

We identified hypertensive patients prescribed amlodipine who switched to amlodipine/atorvastatin (switch) or added a statin to their amlodipine regimen (add-on) from July 2004 to June 2007. Propensity score matching (1 switch:3 add-on) was applied based on 'nearest neighbor' approach. The primary adherence measure was patients with proportion of days covered (PDC) >/=0.80 at 180 days; secondary measures included mean PDC and persistence. A sensitivity analysis was performed, accounting for total statin/amlodipine exposure.

RESULTS

Among 4556 matched patients (n = 1139 switch; n = 3417 add-on), mean age was 53.9 years and 52.1% were male. After 180 days, adherence with statin therapy was higher for the switch vs add-on cohort (50.8% vs 44.3%; P < 0.001). After adjusting for pre-index amlodipine adherence, the switch cohort was more likely to be adherent than the add-on cohort (odds ratio: 1.64 [95% confidence interval: 1.42 to 1.89]). Persistence was higher in the switch than the add-on cohort (127.6 vs 117 days; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Hypertensive patients taking amlodipine who initiated statin therapy via single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin were more likely to remain adherent to their statin than patients adding a separate statin to their antihypertensive regimen.

International open-label studies to assess the efficacy and safety of single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin in attaining blood pressure and lipid targets recommended by country-specific guidelines: the JEWEL programme

BACKGROUND

Single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin targets the two most common modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, hypertension and dyslipidaemia. We evaluated the clinical utility of this single pill to help patients across Europe and Canada achieve country-specific targets for blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).

DESIGN

Two 16-week, open-label studies conducted in 122 study centres across the United Kingdom and Canada (JEWEL 1) and 113 centres across 11 European countries (JEWEL 2).

METHODS

Patients with uncontrolled BP and controlled/uncontrolled LDL-C qualifying for treatment according to local governing guidelines were administered single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin with appropriate lifestyle modification. Eight dosages of amlodipine/atorvastatin (5/10-10/80 mg) were titrated to achieve country-specific BP and LDL-C targets. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients reaching country-specific BP and LDL-C targets in 16 weeks.

RESULTS

Among 2245 patients enrolled in the studies (JEWEL 1, n = 1138; JEWEL 2, n = 1107), 62.9% in JEWEL 1 and 50.6% in JEWEL 2 achieved both country-specific BP and LDL-C goals. BP was reduced by 20.4/10.7 and 21.8/12.6 mmHg in JEWEL 1 and JEWEL 2, respectively, and reductions in LDL-C were 0.90 mmol/l (34.8 mg/dl) and 1.09 mmol/l (42.2 mg/dl), respectively. The most common adverse events were peripheral oedema (11.0%), joint swelling (2.9%) and headache (2.9%), of which, only oedema was linked to study treatment.

CONCLUSION

Single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment, which in a real-world setting helped more than half of the patients achieve both BP and LDL-C targets as recommended by local guidelines. Although fewer patients met their goals in JEWEL 2 than JEWEL 1, reductions in BP and LDL-C were slightly greater in JEWEL 2, suggesting that the observed differences are likely because of more stringent targets in Europe than in the UK/Canada.

Fixed combination of amlodipine and atorvastatin in cardiovascular risk management: patient perspectives

Hypertension and dyslipidemia are two of the most commonly co-occurring cardiovascular risk factors which together cause an increase in coronary heart disease-related events that is more than simply additive for anticipated event rates with each condition. Data have shown that even relatively small reductions in both blood pressure and cholesterol levels can lead to large reductions in the risk for cardiovascular events. However, though there are robust data on the beneficial effect of concomitant reduction in these risk factors, the reality is that this is achieved in <10% of patients. There is nonadherence with prescribed therapies with up to 50% of patients stopping their medications of their own volition for a variety of reasons. There is a reasonable evidence base to suggest that simplifying drug regimens and reducing pill burden will enhance patient adherence. The fixed-dose combination containing the antihypertensive agent amlodipine besylate and the statin atorvastatin is the first combination of its kind, which is both efficacious and safe and could potentially improve medication compliance, thereby improving the outcomes in these patients.